Eileen Hernandez, M.D. v. Lualhati Crespo
211 So. 3d 19
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Mrs. Crespo signed a pre-dispute medical-malpractice arbitration agreement with Women’s Care Florida; Mr. Crespo did not. The Crespos sued after a stillbirth. Petitioners sought to compel arbitration under the signed agreement.
- The agreement purported to incorporate Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) but contained numerous provisions more favorable to the providers (e.g., cost‑sharing, party‑selected arbitrators, no concession of liability, no interest on damages, no guaranteed administrative law judge, no appeal right).
- The Crespos sought arbitration under the MMA statutory scheme; Petitioners refused and relied on the private agreement instead.
- The Fifth District held the agreement void as against public policy and certified conflict with the Second District’s decision in Santiago v. Baker, which had upheld a similar agreement where the statutory scheme was not invoked.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction, reviewed de novo, and (following Franks v. Bowers) held the agreement void because it unilaterally altered key MMA incentives and provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre‑dispute arbitration agreement that purports to incorporate the MMA but omits or alters statutory protections is void as against public policy | Crespo: The agreement is void because it alters essential MMA quid pro quo and contains provisions favoring providers, undermining legislative intent to balance incentives | Petitioners: Parties may contract around statutes and privately arbitrate; the agreement is enforceable (and in Santiago, the MMA scheme was not invoked) | Held: Void as against public policy — agreement contravenes MMA by including unilateral, provider‑favorable terms and so is unenforceable |
| Whether parties can selectively adopt MMA provisions (e.g., cost sharing) outside statutory arbitration | Crespo: Selective adoption undermines statutory balance and incentives for arbitration | Petitioners: Private agreements may provide different terms; nothing in Bowers precludes enforceability of private arbitration agreements | Held: Parties cannot pick and choose MMA terms in a way that defeats statutory incentives; such unilateral alterations are unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Bowers, 116 So.3d 1240 (Fla. 2013) (struck similar arbitration agreement as against public policy when it altered MMA incentives)
- Santiago v. Baker, 135 So.3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (upheld private arbitration agreement where statutory scheme was not invoked; certified conflict)
- Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So.2d 189 (Fla. 1993) (discusses Legislature’s findings and purpose in enacting MMA)
- St. Mary's Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961 (Fla. 2000) (noting defendant concession of liability and cap incentives in statutory arbitration)
- Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So.3d 894 (Fla. 2014) (addressed constitutionality of MMA caps and considered whether a malpractice crisis persists)